Had an MRI

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: StevenYoo
I did a few for some research studies.

Yeah, it's tight in there. I'm 6' tall and 215 lbs. I was snug, but not super uncomfortable

Holy crap...you're a water buffalo!!

 

[Comdrpopnfresh]

If you have a problem with tight spaces, go to a place with an open mri. It's not as bad. The headphones work because the mag. field is highly directional and precise (would they get those images if that was not true?). They are also heavily shielded. That being said, you can't wear headphones for procedures where they scan your head or anything close to it. They usually put on a TV in an open mri under those circumstances.

 

[Kung Lau]

Originally posted by: Shawn

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: BoomerD
I've had numerous MRI's. One place gives earplugs like you had, another place gives you sound deadening earphones and your choice of music...and you can bring your own CD's if you want...I usually plug in classical music and sleep through the procedure. (as long as I don't move, they don't care)

Hmm interesting, the headphones dont screw with the picture at all?

Even if the headphones weren't ripped off your head, I don't see how they would function properly. Speakers are magnets after all.

They use the type of headphones they used to use on airplanes back in the dayl. The tubes distribute the air sound. No mechanical features in the headset, just delivering music through a rubber tube.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Shawn

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: BoomerD
I've had numerous MRI's. One place gives earplugs like you had, another place gives you sound deadening earphones and your choice of music...and you can bring your own CD's if you want...I usually plug in classical music and sleep through the procedure. (as long as I don't move, they don't care)

Hmm interesting, the headphones dont screw with the picture at all?

Even if the headphones weren't ripped off your head, I don't see how they would function properly. Speakers are magnets after all.

But they don't have to be magnets. You can even purchase non-magnetic headphones. Don't ask me how the hell they work.

 

[DaTT]

Been there....slept through it. I found the loud noises it made to be rather hypnotic....then again, I could sleep through a war.

 

[Mark R]

Originally posted by: Shawn
Even if the headphones weren't ripped off your head, I don't see how they would function properly. Speakers are magnets after all.

Not all speakers use magnets.

There are 'electrostatic speakers', which use electric fields to move the diaphragm. By applying a high voltage (usually 2-3 kV) to a mylar diaphragm, you can make a speaker. This technique is MRI compatible.

A friend of mine was a MRI researcher studying hearing, and he built a set of electrostatic speakers (from some Sennheiser audiophile headphones) into some industrial ear defenders. Worked very nicely.

 

[Comdrpopnfresh]

If you have a problem with tight spaces, go to a place with an open mri. It's not as bad. The headphones work because the mag. field is highly directional and precise (would they get those images if that was not true?). They are also heavily shielded. That being said, you can't wear headphones for procedures where they scan your head or anything close to it. They usually put on a TV in an open mri under those circumstances.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Comdrpopnfresh
If you have a problem with tight spaces, go to a place with an open mri. It's not as bad. The headphones work because the mag. field is highly directional and precise (would they get those images if that was not true?). They are also heavily shielded. That being said, you can't wear headphones for procedures where they scan your head or anything close to it. They usually put on a TV in an open mri under those circumstances.

A ferromagnet (common headphones) placed in a magnetic field is still going to feel a large force due to the MRI machine. The machine basically just makes a huge magnetic field. It doesn't matter if they're looking at your feet, there's still a large magnetic field near your head. The actual imaging is done with radio waves, but the technique requires the magnetizing effects of a large magnetic field.

 

[Comdrpopnfresh]

Then I suppose they are uncommon, because I've been in mri's and listened to music. In one for my head, I was given a remote, and there was a plasma TV 10' away on the wall.

 

[Mark R]

Originally posted by: marvdmartian
Cat-scans are much quieter, but more expensive. From what I understand, MRI's are better at seeing some things, cat-scans better at seeing other things, but damned if I know which is which. I've had MRI on my knee, and cat-scan on my shoulder (with a pre-scan with a fluoroscope beforehand, so they could inject the contrasting fluid into my shoulder). You can fall asleep with a cat.......don't know how you'd do so with an MRI.

CT scans are quieter, cheaper and quicker.

CT scans measure physical density (via X-rays) - so they are fantastic for bones, and moderately good for telling organs/soft tissues apart. By using an iodine contrast fluid, you can get better definition of structures - e.g. by injecting air and iodinated contrast into a joint, it can outline the cartilage, which the CT scan would struggle to pick up normally.

MRI scans fundamentally detect hydrogen atoms (so water and fat). As a result, they are poor for bones, but fantastic for cartilage and ligaments. As knee problems are usually cartilage or ligament, MRI is the best test for knees. Similarly, it's the best test for the spine. Spine problems are not normally in the bones, but due to the cartilage discs (e.g. a disc is bulging and pressing on a nerve, causing tingling and numbness). X-rays or CT scans are worthless for examining spinal discs and nerves. So, a doc would typically do an X-ray of the spine to make sure there are no bone problems, but if there are nerve symptoms then an MRI is the next step (although the MRI would normally be ordered by a specialist, who has performed a specialist physical examination).

MRIs are much more expensive. The scanner is much more expensive: typically $1.5 - 2million, compared to a CT scanner $500-750k. The MRI scanner is also much more expensive to operate, and the scans take much longer (typically 30 - 75 minutes), whereas a CT scan rarely takes longer than 2 minutes. As a result, in a typical working day, you could get maybe 10 MRI scans done on one scanner, but 50 CT scans.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Comdrpopnfresh
Then I suppose they are uncommon, because I've been in mri's and listened to music. In one for my head, I was given a remote, and there was a plasma TV 10' away on the wall.

Yes, it's just a matter of making sure you don't use ferromagnetic materials like Iron or Nickel in the headphones. Someone else pointed out a few ways that this can be done, all of which sound pretty brilliant.

Ten feet away from the machine is probably far enough away to not have a significant magnetic field. Five feet (almost inside the machine) is close enough that a piece of iron would probably feel a strong force.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Mark R

Originally posted by: marvdmartian
Cat-scans are much quieter, but more expensive. From what I understand, MRI's are better at seeing some things, cat-scans better at seeing other things, but damned if I know which is which. I've had MRI on my knee, and cat-scan on my shoulder (with a pre-scan with a fluoroscope beforehand, so they could inject the contrasting fluid into my shoulder). You can fall asleep with a cat.......don't know how you'd do so with an MRI.

CT scans are quieter, cheaper and quicker.

CT scans measure physical density (via X-rays) - so they are fantastic for bones, and moderately good for telling organs/soft tissues apart. By using an iodine contrast fluid, you can get better definition of structures - e.g. by injecting air and iodinated contrast into a joint, it can outline the cartilage, which the CT scan would struggle to pick up normally.

MRI scans fundamentally detect hydrogen atoms (so water and fat). As a result, they are poor for bones, but fantastic for cartilage and ligaments. As knee problems are usually cartilage or ligament, MRI is the best test for knees. Similarly, it's the best test for the spine. Spine problems are not normally in the bones, but due to the cartilage discs (e.g. a disc is bulging and pressing on a nerve, causing tingling and numbness). X-rays or CT scans are worthless for examining spinal discs and nerves. So, a doc would typically do an X-ray of the spine to make sure there are no bone problems, but if there are nerve symptoms then an MRI is the next step (although the MRI would normally be ordered by a specialist, who has performed a specialist physical examination).

MRIs are much more expensive. The scanner is much more expensive: typically $1.5 - 2million, compared to a CT scanner $500-750k. The MRI scanner is also much more expensive to operate, and the scans take much longer (typically 30 - 75 minutes), whereas a CT scan rarely takes longer than 2 minutes. As a result, in a typical working day, you could get maybe 10 MRI scans done on one scanner, but 50 CT scans.

Intriguing insights from an insider? If you don't mind me asking, what do you do? I've always been intrigued by medical imaging.

 

[Pacfanweb]

I've had several. They are deafening. Nowadays, they give you headphones and ask what radio station you like around here.

I'm 6'4" and over 250, and they are definitely tight spaces. First one I was ever in was the tightest. I felt like a torpedo being loaded into the tube.

Last few had an opening at the other side where my head and shoulders stuck out. That was much better.

First time, they asked me if I was claustrophobic.....I'm no, and when they put me in there I realized why they asked.

 

[BoomerD]

Oh ye morons of little faith...


http://www.newmaticsound.com/i...8vt50f906p9u85pcb69630

http://www.scansound.com/

http://www.magnaserv.com/mri-music-system.html

 

[brxndxn]

The last one I had, I fell asleep.. It was great..

 

[TraumaRN]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: Mark R

Originally posted by: marvdmartian
Cat-scans are much quieter, but more expensive. From what I understand, MRI's are better at seeing some things, cat-scans better at seeing other things, but damned if I know which is which. I've had MRI on my knee, and cat-scan on my shoulder (with a pre-scan with a fluoroscope beforehand, so they could inject the contrasting fluid into my shoulder). You can fall asleep with a cat.......don't know how you'd do so with an MRI.

CT scans are quieter, cheaper and quicker.

CT scans measure physical density (via X-rays) - so they are fantastic for bones, and moderately good for telling organs/soft tissues apart. By using an iodine contrast fluid, you can get better definition of structures - e.g. by injecting air and iodinated contrast into a joint, it can outline the cartilage, which the CT scan would struggle to pick up normally.

MRI scans fundamentally detect hydrogen atoms (so water and fat). As a result, they are poor for bones, but fantastic for cartilage and ligaments. As knee problems are usually cartilage or ligament, MRI is the best test for knees. Similarly, it's the best test for the spine. Spine problems are not normally in the bones, but due to the cartilage discs (e.g. a disc is bulging and pressing on a nerve, causing tingling and numbness). X-rays or CT scans are worthless for examining spinal discs and nerves. So, a doc would typically do an X-ray of the spine to make sure there are no bone problems, but if there are nerve symptoms then an MRI is the next step (although the MRI would normally be ordered by a specialist, who has performed a specialist physical examination).

MRIs are much more expensive. The scanner is much more expensive: typically $1.5 - 2million, compared to a CT scanner $500-750k. The MRI scanner is also much more expensive to operate, and the scans take much longer (typically 30 - 75 minutes), whereas a CT scan rarely takes longer than 2 minutes. As a result, in a typical working day, you could get maybe 10 MRI scans done on one scanner, but 50 CT scans.

Intriguing insights from an insider? If you don't mind me asking, what do you do? I've always been intrigued by medical imaging.

I work in an ER so I'm around XR and CT scans all the time and to a limited extent MRIs. And he's right CT scan is quicker, faster, cheaper. And they are better for bones while MRIs are better for most anything soft tissue related.

And 2 minutes on a CT scan?? Ha....I've spent an hour in there with bad trauma cases....when they get a CT Head, CT facial bones, CT cervical spine, CT thorax, CT abdomen and CT pelvis.

But generally for a normal person to get a CT, for example a CT of your thorax, takes about 3-5 minutes, depending on what they are looking for.

 

[StageLeft]

Two on my knee, I find the thing very loud but almost hypnotic. The first time I think i almost fell asleep.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Mark R

Originally posted by: marvdmartian
Cat-scans are much quieter, but more expensive. From what I understand, MRI's are better at seeing some things, cat-scans better at seeing other things, but damned if I know which is which. I've had MRI on my knee, and cat-scan on my shoulder (with a pre-scan with a fluoroscope beforehand, so they could inject the contrasting fluid into my shoulder). You can fall asleep with a cat.......don't know how you'd do so with an MRI.

CT scans are quieter, cheaper and quicker.

CT scans measure physical density (via X-rays) - so they are fantastic for bones, and moderately good for telling organs/soft tissues apart. By using an iodine contrast fluid, you can get better definition of structures - e.g. by injecting air and iodinated contrast into a joint, it can outline the cartilage, which the CT scan would struggle to pick up normally.

MRI scans fundamentally detect hydrogen atoms (so water and fat). As a result, they are poor for bones, but fantastic for cartilage and ligaments. As knee problems are usually cartilage or ligament, MRI is the best test for knees. Similarly, it's the best test for the spine. Spine problems are not normally in the bones, but due to the cartilage discs (e.g. a disc is bulging and pressing on a nerve, causing tingling and numbness). X-rays or CT scans are worthless for examining spinal discs and nerves. So, a doc would typically do an X-ray of the spine to make sure there are no bone problems, but if there are nerve symptoms then an MRI is the next step (although the MRI would normally be ordered by a specialist, who has performed a specialist physical examination).

MRIs are much more expensive. The scanner is much more expensive: typically $1.5 - 2million, compared to a CT scanner $500-750k. The MRI scanner is also much more expensive to operate, and the scans take much longer (typically 30 - 75 minutes), whereas a CT scan rarely takes longer than 2 minutes. As a result, in a typical working day, you could get maybe 10 MRI scans done on one scanner, but 50 CT scans.

exactly. orthopedic tests FIRST to determine whether an mri is even necessary. the doc just skipped that step and went right into getting imaging done.

 

[Mark R]

Originally posted by: DeathBUA
And 2 minutes on a CT scan?? Ha....I've spent an hour in there with bad trauma cases....when they get a CT Head, CT facial bones, CT cervical spine, CT thorax, CT abdomen and CT pelvis.

But generally for a normal person to get a CT, for example a CT of your thorax, takes about 3-5 minutes, depending on what they are looking for.

OK. That comment was perhaps a bit misleading, and wasn't really intended for trauma series where there are multiple exams.

However, I was talking about the actual amount of time needed on the scanner. My point was that with CT, the time taken to actually get in and out of the room, get the IV line in, do the admin, tends to be far longer than the actual time spent on the scanner waiting for it to do its work.

In terms of modern scanners, the technology has improved incredibly in the last few years. The scanners are now so fast, that it's really a question of how fast the technician can set up the scanner, give the IV contrast, etc. For something like a combined head, cervical spine and facial bones exam, a modern scanner would only need about 10 seconds to perform the exam.

 

[Lola]

I have had a few of them for various migraine issues. The most recent one this past March was the "worst" for me. I am very clastrophobic and I was in the machine for 45 minutes. I was injected with gadmium (sp?) for a contrast the last half of the procedure. Everything was fine except the dye was not injecting properly.
I did not enjoy the experience, but the amazing staff at the place more than made up for the uncomfortableness of the hour.

 

[SearchMaster]

I had one when they were trying to definitively diagnose my gout. The noise didn't bother me too much but they had to manipulate my ankle around for the various angles, and if you've ever had gout you know that you don't want anyone within 5 feet of you. I almost screamed several times, in fact I really don't know how I managed not to.

 

[Megatomic]

I've never had an imaging done on me except for x-rays. My wife has had them all though. She's mildly claustrophobic, so they're no fun for her.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Lola
I have had a few of them for various migraine issues. The most recent one this past March was the "worst" for me. I am very clastrophobic and I was in the machine for 45 minutes. I was injected with gadmium (sp?) for a contrast the last half of the procedure. Everything was fine except the dye was not injecting properly.
I did not enjoy the experience, but the amazing staff at the place more than made up for the uncomfortableness of the hour.

gadolinium